The fact of this case in short is that the husband of the complainant has a domestic electric connection to his premises having service connection number 5256/DR, consumer number A051103.

The complainant claimed that her husband was regular in payment of the bills received from the opposite parties up to July, 2011. Again on 25.07.2011 the employee of opposite parties came to the house of the complainant to collect the meter reading when it was 4872 and the previous was 4509. So the total units consumed was 363 units . So the bill for August, 2011 of `491.91 and for September, 2011 of `463.65 and for October, 2011 of `463.65 were paid by the complainant. But in the next bill, which was for the months of November, 2011 to and January, 2012 the O.P. claimed in total a sum of `17,771/- as due from the petitioner and which was not paid till date. According to the complainant this bill is inflated and for the rectification of the said bill she applied before the opposite parties but the opposite parties did not rectify the bill till this date. It is further stated that the employee of the opposite parties installed a new meter on 03.12.2011 in the premises of the petitioner and according to further case of the petitioner that her new meter registered consumption of 536 units for 52 days. Basing on this analogy the complainant claims that her disputed bill should have been shown the registration of the consumption of the units as usual. So, this petition has been filed to quash the disputed bill which claimed the payment of `17,771/-, for an order preventing the opposite parties to disconnect the service line and compensation as the Ld. Forum may deem fit and proper.

The case is contested by the WBSEDCL by filing a written version. It is only defense of the opposite parties that the disputed bill was prepared as per consumption of the energy registered in the meter. So, this case should be dismissed.

Decisions with reasons      

The complainant has filed the disputed electricity bill along with other bills in support to show that a uniform registration of energy consumed in the meter of the petitioner. On perusal of those bills, we do find that actually the bills of the petitioner ran from `450/- to `800/- and `2370/- to the maximum per month against her consumption of the energy. So, abruptly a demand for payment of `17,771/- in a single bill certainly came as a shock to the petitioner which is totally inconsistent with her previous bills, not even to the near of the demand asked to meet by the O.P. in those previous bills. The O.P. has not been able to clarify how the disputed bill claimed such a huge amount for payment where as the meter in question was for few period was not working and a new meter was installed subsequently and a bill for three months prepared as per the consumption of the new meter previous to the disputed bill was paid as the claim was very much consistent with the previous bill. So, it was the duty of the O.P. to clarify before this Forum as to why a exorbitant amount was claimed in the said bill which shows that the consumption of units was ‘0’. So, in the circumstances this Forum is bound to hold the disputed bill has been prepared without any basis. So, it is liable to be quashed and we direct the O.P. to prepare a fresh bill taking all the circumstances into consideration.

So, it is ordered,

That the bill dated 08.11.2011 prepared against consumer No. A051103 and service connection No.5256-DR of the amount of `17,771/- is hereby quashed. We direct the O.P. to prepare a new bill for the period of November, December, 2011 and January, 2012. We also direct the O.P. not to disconnect the service connection of the petitioner till it reviews the disputed bill and issue a fresh bill accordingly. The petitioner do get a compensation of `200/- against the WBSEDCL.

Fees paid are correct.

Furnish the true photocopies of this Final Order to the parties free of cost.